• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S.: In state of denial over taxes?

Lord Tammerlain said:
If I am not mistaken
Social Security is not the issue. It is funded through a specific tax that currently is either in surplus or just slightly in the red. Which given the surplus from previous years means it is not the issue regarding todays deficits
Click to expand...
1: The "specific tax" argument is meaningless. The deficit is figured with every dollar of revenue compared to every dollar of outlay. Every dollar of SS spending is an outlay, and so every dollar of SS spending contributes to the deficit.
2: When the SSTF IOUs come due, the only way to pay them back is from general revenues or more borrowing. Either way, this will drive up the deficit even more.
 
AdamT said:
Obviously it isn't enough to pay for the government that most Americans want. The issue is both spending and taxes.
Click to expand...

But you gotta admit, it was a slick way to avoid addressing anything that was posted in the OP
 
AdamT said:
Obviously it isn't enough to pay for the government that most Americans want.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you need to consider that, in terms of their government, what 'most Americans want" isn't reasonable.

Deficits are always a choice - you CHOOSE to run one by spending more than you have.
 
sangha said:
But you gotta admit, it was a slick way to avoid addressing anything that was posted in the OP
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wonder if that argument works both ways? Can I say, "hey, you make $10 million a year -- that's enough money for anyone. The rest goes to the government." ;)
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Perhaps you need to consider that, in terms of their government, what 'most Americans want" isn't reasonable.

Deficits are always a choice - you CHOOSE to run one by spending more than you have.
Click to expand...

Majority rules.
 
AdamT said:
Majority rules.
Click to expand...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I just said.

But, I am glad to see you can admit that deficits are a choice, that you CHOOSE to run one by spending more than you have.
 
AdamT said:
Majority rules.
Click to expand...
Minority rights and enumerated powers.

What country do you live in that you think you have a right to "rule" over others simply because you have a mob behind you? How sick.
 
Mach said:
Minority rights and enumerated powers.

What country do you live in that you think you have a right to "rule" over others simply because you have a mob behind you? How sick.
Click to expand...

I think I live in the U.S.A., where the government is elected by a majority and laws are SUPPOSED to be passed by a majority vote.

I don't think I would like to live in your country that's ruled by a minority. I think that's what they call a dictatorship.
 
AdamT said:
I think I live in the U.S.A., where the government is elected by a majority and laws are SUPPOSED to be passed by a majority vote.
I don't think I would like to live in your country that's ruled by a minority. I think that's what they call a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Based on the above I think you misunderstand the discussion.

Minority rights and enumerated powers means there are limits as to what the federal government majority can rule over, in the first place.

Is freedom so foreign to you that you can only envision two scenarios?
A majority government ruling you, or a minority government ruling you?

How about your government is supposed to allow you to rule yourself on most things? What are they teaching you in school????
 
Mach said:
Based on the above I think you misunderstand the discussion.

Minority rights and enumerated powers means there are limits as to what the federal government majority can rule over, in the first place.

Is freedom so foreign to you that you can only envision two scenarios?
A majority government ruling you, or a minority government ruling you?

How about your government is supposed to allow you to rule yourself on most things? What are they teaching you in school????
Click to expand...

You seem to be a little confused. What I'm saying is that the majority of Americans are in favor of a strong military, Social Security, and Medicare/aid. Politicians are generally responsive to what wants of the majority -- that's how a democracy works. Therefore we have to raise enough revenue to pay for the government that most Americans want.

Clear enough?
 
AdamT said:
What I'm saying is that the majority of Americans are in favor of a strong military, Social Security, and Medicare/aid. Politicians are generally responsive to what wants of the majority -- that's how a democracy works. Therefore we have to raise enough revenue to pay for the government that most Americans want.
Click to expand...
You're correct when you say that Americans want those expensive programs, but we also want low taxes. It's fair to say "we have to raise enough revenue to pay for the government that most Americans want", but it's equally fair to say that we need to cut spending to match the low tax rates that most Americans want.
 
mpg said:
You're correct when you say that Americans want those expensive programs, but we also want low taxes. It's fair to say "we have to raise enough revenue to pay for the government that most Americans want", but it's equally fair to say that we need to cut spending to match the low tax rates that most Americans want.
Click to expand...

Aye, there's the rub.
 
Middleground said:
I found this article in The Globe and Mail and had to share. I admit I smirk when I hear Americans complain about tax rates as I knew they pay less than most developed countries. In fact, tax rates in the US today are comparable to those of 1965! Having said that, there's no graph that shows which country gets more bang for their taxed bucks, but that is another point altogether.

I'm interested in hearing feedback and whether this surprises you or not.




U.S.: In state of denial over taxes? - The Globe and Mail


infographic1_1303387a.JPG
Click to expand...
The US Government contradicts your post.
Revenue As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local

Secondly, is % GDP necessarily the appropriate stat? What about looking at who actually pays more, rather than a %? That makes more sense to me.

Thirdly, saying that taxes are too high in the US is NOT the same as saying that US taxes are higher than in other countries. Therefore, this thread, like many threads, is a straw man.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
The point is that a 3% increase in tax rates doesn't turn us into socialists.
Click to expand...

3% on top of what we already have. Socialism begins in the minds of those who feel society owes them something.
 
sangha said:
No, it is you who is focuing on entitlements. It is you who is saying we MUST cut entitlements.

There is no need. We can

1) Grow the economy
2) Remove the FICA cap
3) Create a single payer UUHC health care system, and save 33% on our HC expenditures
4) Raise taxes and eliminate corporate welfare

That combo would go a long way towards solving our fiscal problem
Click to expand...

No, it would go a long way toward fulfilling your fiscal fantasies. And thank you for proving you are not an Independent, which I knew all along.
 
American said:
3% on top of what we already have. Socialism begins in the minds of those who feel society owes them something.
Click to expand...

The minds of those who want their medicare and Social Security, and roads, and a big Defense Department, all without paying for it.

An idea the Republicans have been pushing since Reagan.

Democrats, on the other hand, will let the Republicans have the low taxes they want, as long as they don't have to cut spending. This was essentially Reagan's deal with Tip O'Neill -- cut taxes and let Rs spend exorbitant amounts Defense, and the Ds got to spend as much as they want on everything else.

30 + years of big deficits, that we now have to pay for. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not all Obama's fault.
 
Middleground said:
First off, let's make this discussion adult and cease the name calling.

As for your point, where exactly does it state that the US was never intended to be socialist? That is surprising to me since many of your programs (SS, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc.) are, no?
Click to expand...

Those programs were created by socialist politicos, not the founders.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Perhaps you need to consider that, in terms of their government, what 'most Americans want" isn't reasonable.

Deficits are always a choice - you CHOOSE to run one by spending more than you have.
Click to expand...

Reasonable or not, these decisions are meant to be decided through the democratic process. And they were

Our system of govt does not require outcomes that please you or anyone else. We get the govt we deserve. Your opinions about the matter are just that..opinions.
 
Mach said:
Minority rights and enumerated powers.

What country do you live in that you think you have a right to "rule" over others simply because you have a mob behind you? How sick.
Click to expand...

Minority rights have nothing to do with taxes and taxes are an enumerated power. When it comes to income taxes, the majority certainly does rule.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Based on the above I think you misunderstand the discussion.

Minority rights and enumerated powers means there are limits as to what the federal government majority can rule over, in the first place.

Is freedom so foreign to you that you can only envision two scenarios?
A majority government ruling you, or a minority government ruling you?

How about your government is supposed to allow you to rule yourself on most things? What are they teaching you in school????
Click to expand...

Again, minority rights have nothing to do with income taxes and taxes are an enumerated power. The constitution is clear that the govt has the power to levy taxes. The limits of that power are equally clear, and it doesn't place a specific limit on the tax rates
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
The US Government contradicts your post.
Revenue As Percent Of GDP in United States 1900-2010 - Federal State Local

Secondly, is % GDP necessarily the appropriate stat? What about looking at who actually pays more, rather than a %? That makes more sense to me.

Thirdly, saying that taxes are too high in the US is NOT the same as saying that US taxes are higher than in other countries. Therefore, this thread, like many threads, is a straw man.
Click to expand...

That chart is about revenue, which includes more than just taxes.

And this thread isn't about what any one individual pays in taxes. It's about the total tax burden as a share of GDP.

And since rightwingers like to claim that if we raise taxes, corps will move to other nations, it must certainly is an appropriate fact to point out.

And you don't seem to understand what a straw man is. It does not mean "an argument I do not like"
 
American said:
No, it would go a long way toward fulfilling your fiscal fantasies. And thank you for proving you are not an Independent, which I knew all along.
Click to expand...

Neither party is suggesting this set of proposals so I don't understand how it shows I'm not an independent.
 
apdst said:
Those programs were created by socialist politicos, not the founders.
Click to expand...

bush* and the republicans who created Medicare D were socialists?

Nixon, who proposed a universal health care system and a minimum income was a socialist? :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom